Sangeeta Sachdev vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners herein seek quashing of an FIR No.126/2024 dated 07.03.2024, lodged at Police Station Savina, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 379 of IPC.

Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, of the case are that marriage of petitioner No.1 (wife) and respondent No.2 /complainant (husband) was solemnized on 22.04.2023 at Udaipur. On 19.05.2023, complainant received a phone call from his parents-in-law that they are coming for taking their daughter to her parental home. They came, stayed at Udaipur for 3 days and took along their daughter. On 04.07.2023, the complainant contacted his wife but she did not reply and also blocked his number. The complainant has thus lodged the FIR in question alleging that his wife committed fraud with him. She also took all his money and jewelry. By this act of his wife, family image of complainant is completely tarnished. Wife is aggrieved by the FIR, hence this petition by her and her family.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, argues that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR in question are false and frivolous. He contends that the complainant himself and his family members had beaten Petitioner No. 1 (wife), and to save their skin, the FIR in question was lodged. Hence, the FIR is clearly an abuse of the process of law and was filed with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioners. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4.1 It is stated that FIR in question was lodged on false allegations against the petitioners. During the investigation, the police with the connivance of the complainant, is likely to take coercive steps against the petitioners.

4.2 Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are, in fact, on same lines as grounds taken in the petition seeking quashing of the FIR. The same are summarized as below:

(A). FIR is clearly an abuse of the process of the court, filed with ulterior motive, totally false, for wreaking vengeance against the petitioners and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(B). Bare perusal of the FIR itself goes to show that the petitioners have not committed any offence under the given sections of the IPC.

(C). From narrative of the FIR, it can be clearly made out that the petitioners have not derived any illegal benefit from respondent no. 2. It is simply a matrimonial dispute between complainant and petitioner No.1.

(D). Petitioners are reputed persons. They have not cheated complainant. He has levelled false allegations in the FIR. Facts mentioned in the present FIR are fabricated. Hence impugned FIR and the entire proceedings in furtherance thereof deserve to be set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant argue that the investigation is still underway and the truth will unfold in the course thereof. They urge that the FIR cannot be quashed merely based on the contents of the petition/affidavit filed before this court, which are yet to be investigated.

Having heard and perused the FIR, I am inclined to agree with the stand taken in the petition and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. Reasons are not far to seek. Concededly, the petitioner No.1 is wife of the complainant, against whom allegation is that she has taken away all the jewelry belonging to his family and his personal belongings at the time of leaving her matrimonial home.

Having seen the contents of the FIR and the nature of dispute, which is purely matrimonial in nature, it is borne out that the FIR in question has been registered in complete abuse of the police powers and is a motivated one only to settle the personal scores arising out of the differences between husband and the wife.

Needless to say, when wife left her matrimonial home, she was entitled to take along the personal belongings and her istridhan. FIR does not show any details of complainant’s money and jewelry delivered / entrusted or otherwise taken away by his wife. No offence under Sections 420, 406, 384, 388, 389, 120-B of I.P.C is, therefore, made out qua the said allegations made by the complainant in the FIR in question.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.126/2024 dated 07.03.2024, lodged at Police Station Savina, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 379 of IPC, is quashed.